Nozick’s Account of the Minimal State Essay

Specifically, Nozick’s theory of justice requires only that people refrain from acting in ways that interfere with others (lockean rights). He argues that we are not obligated to do anything for anyone else nor is anyone required to do anything positive for us. Not only are we forbidden from interfering with a person’s liberty to promote general good, we are prohibited from doing so even if violating an individual’s rights would prevent other individuals’ rights from being violated. Moreover, the theory of justice supports that people are entitled to their

Private interests are things that are best for an individual while public interests are “things that are good for a community as a community” (Stone 2012: 24). The conflict between the two interests introduces the question of how much the government can and should make decisions about citizen’s private liberties and choices. John Stuart Mill believed “government should interfere with individual choice as little as possible” because choices equate to freedom (Stone 2012: 108). Nozick agreed that the “minimal state is the most extensive state that can be justified” (Nozick 1974: 149). The role of government should be limited to ensuring the equal rights of its citizens. If government becomes more involved, it may end up obstructing liberty, even if it was trying to protect

John Locke’s social construct, which is inherently based on the The Law of Nature, bestowed by God, assuring humans with the right of health, liberty and property, is undoubtedly flawed to some extent in which specific aspects of such can be exploited to justify wrongful doings. Given that Locke forms that the human state of nature is one of relative peace, in which each person is inherently moral trough universal religious affiliation, and whom follow their bidding without interference, in regard to the rights bound by the law of nature, and the constant tendency for humans to develop disputes amongst these natural rights, specifically that of property, the attraction of swaying away from a state of nature is in part to maintain one’s property safe and equal. This is an important factor in Locke’s theory as it is what disputes the choice of staying in a peaceful state of nature in the menace of possible war and danger.

To Locke, the “State of Nature” is a state in which every human being is his own king, who answers to no higher authority than his own conscience and will. Although this “State of Nature” offers complete freedom; this freedom is accompanied by an amorphous mass of fears and insecurities that stem from devolution that Locke called the “State of War”. The “State of War” occurs when one individual tyrannizes another (either to enslave him or to take over his property) and the victim of this relationship rightfully decides to defend himself. In the “State of War” the tyrant tries to deprive the individual of the rights that he is naturally entitled to.

In State of Nature, where voluntary consent has yet to be established, disagreements are frequent. Every man believes their rights are more important than another’s, which leads to this quarrelling. Yes, it is true, everyone is endowed with their natural rights and has the right to defend them because no one has the right to take away someone else’s natural rights. “Hence, in the state of nature, no man had any moral power to deprive another of his life, limbs, property, or liberty: nor the least authority to command, or exact obedience from him…” On the contrary, this chaos brought on by two people trying to settle an argument their own way leads to dysfunction. This chaos is why we need government, so that we may have a unified, known set of laws for society to settle disagreements with. “If life, liberty and property could be enjoyed as great perfection in solitude, as in society, there would be no need of government. But the experience of ages has proved that such is the nature of man, weak, imperfect being…” Men are selfish and weak in nature, we need something to unite for success us while still protecting individual’s natural rights. This uniting force is government.

Locke argues the illegitimacy of absolute monarchy as a form of government and offers readers a new form of government and civil society wherein individuals surrender their natural rights in exchange for: “the peace,

Robert Nozick was a political philosopher who work best reflects the political thinking of the United States, to the extent that his work is unthinkable without considering the history and the constitution of the nation. From this starting point Nozick shows us that in the state of nature men are entitled on one hand to their lives and safety, and also to self-possession. Inspired by empiricist philosopher John Locke, who proclaimed that natural rights exist and are claimable, Nozick claims that his concept of a minimal state is morally justifiable. “Only a minimal state, limited to enforcing contracts and protecting people against any force, theft, and fraud, is justified. Any more extensive state violates person’s rights not to be force

Robert Nozick, in Anarchy, State and Utopia develops his central idea called the ‘entitlement theory.’ This concept states that redistribution of goods is only considered justified if it has the consent of the owner of the holdings. He mentions here that the only State that is justified in carrying out any duties is the ‘minimal state.’ The minimal State is one that is only limited to the enforcement of of contracts and protection of individuals, etc. Any more intervention from the State, according to Nozick, is a violation of right against the people. The purpose of this essay is to examine Nozick’s argument against redistributive taxation to prove that eliminating taxation means getting rid of public education. I will argue that the right of education is embedded as one of the services that is essential to the development of society and that without the funding for it, it will cease to exist. Using Charles Taylor’s argument, that choices are necessary for autonomy, I show how education gives rise to better autonomy for in the individual. Thus, allowing for the growth and development of the community.

One of the earliest and most significant transformations in human society was the invention of government, which inherently grants someone power over others. He remarks that “civil government is the proper remedy for the inconveniences of the state of nature” (Locke 12) and that “to avoid this state of war … is one great reason of men’s putting themselves into society, and quitting the state of nature” (Locke 16). This presents the idea that nature is only perfect conceptually and that certain

Nozick 's version of libertarianism says that what is controlled in society should be limited to what are the essentials to keep society together. A majority of the services and basics that people require to live can be provided by the private sector and not by the state that lead to unjust in the distribution of goods and services. The services that should be left to the government according to Nozick’s belief are those of security such as the police and military and the enforcement of common laws. These services are the basic essentials to what society needs to function with the most liberty being passed on to the people. The private sector which consist of the majority of the population will be the determining factor in deciding how services should be best executed to fit their needs and desires. In terms of distribution Nozick believes that redistribution is unjust for the reason that it is forced labor on the working people who in most cases do not consent to the redistribution of their wealth. Nozick states in his view on Libertarianism that “People have the right to Liberty” which in this case people should have the liberty to choose how their earnings are distributed. Furthermore, according to Nozick, Libertarianism should reject the redistribution of personal wealth. This statement is focus more of the earnings of people. Having a state that has an uncontrolled power over the distribution of one 's wealth can result in a structure that allows others to benefit off

The state of nature is the idea of life without society, government, state, or laws. John Locke and Hobbes both agree that the state of nature is equivalent to a state of perfect freedom and equality, although they both understand these terms differently. Hobbes argues that equality leads to inequality in the state of nature. Inequality arises from the idea of man having the right to pursue their self-interest, with no duties to each other. Without duties to each other when, “Any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies” (Hobbes 184). In the Hobbesian natural state, man is made up of diffidence and lives with no security other than what he can provide himself (Hobbes 185). By virtue, men will enter a continuous state of war for self-preservation because it is man’s natural right to act on what he thinks is necessary to protect himself.

The debate between Rawls and Nozick is one that can still be seen today. The solution to the problem depends on whether a person is a libertarian or a liberal. Though Rawls makes a compelling argument, Nozick’s words cannot be ignored. Rawls argument claims that justice should be fair and this fairness is achieved by strong government restraints. Rawls believes that justice should be able to be achieved by all, not only the privileged. Nozick claims that justice comes from a minimal state, one where people can achieve justice through their natural rights. Justice is redistributive; it is not solely in the hands of one person. There is a clear debate and the obvious choice is Nozick solely based on the fact that Rawls’ theory is an impractical one. In order for Rawls theory to be put into effect there needs to be no self-interest. This is not the case with human nature; society is naturally inclined to protect the self.

The original Social Contract tradition has had many authors, but for the purposes of this paper I will focus on John Locke’s work as one political system that might be used by a nation and the problems it entails that would have to be discussed for modern uses. Locke begins by describing a state of nature that entails equality and a state of perfect freedom for mankind to live as they want within the laws of nature (Locke 2009, 370). Locke’s work argues for his view of property, where a man has the right to the fruits of his labor but not to another man’s (Locke 2009, 372). In his view, the government is meant to prevent on man from seeking punishment that is unfit for the committed crime and that people join together for protection for themselves and their property (Locke 2009, 371-372). He argues also that no one man should be in charge and that a democracy should be used instead (Locke 2009, 371).

A state is sovereign when its magistrate owes allegiance to no superior power, and he or she is supreme within the legal order of the state. It may be assumed that in every human society where there is a system of law there is also to be found, latent beneath the variety of political forms, in a democracy as much as in a absolute monarchy, a simple relationship between subjects rendering habitual obedience, and a sovereign who renders obedience to none. This vertical structure, of sovereign and subjects, according to this theory, is analogous to the backbone of a man. The structure constitutes an essential part of any human society which possesses a system of law, as the backbone

The proclaimed “Father of Liberalism,” John Locke, is an essential figure to study. If not for his sheer amount of philosophical knowledge, then for the profound impact that he has had on the structure of America’s government. In The Second Treatise of Civil Government, Locke rejects the status quo and opts for a key principle in government that monarchies simply do not have: a social contract. However, before a social contract is created, people must undergo the state of nature; a place of “perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons” (Chapter 2, Section 4). John Locke skillfully uses the state of nature as a starting point to explain how a reasonable government and civil society are created. The state of nature is the essential beginning that any society must take at first. From this, we see the emergence of natural freedoms; our rights to life, liberty, and property; and how a government may limit those for our own benefit.